Talk:Mike Lupica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes?

Did someone delete the references/notes section? there are footnotes but they link to nothing.

• Reference section added. TashTish 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page could tell about what books Mike Lupica has written in the past.

Someone please fix the random crap in this article, it's ridiculous

Lupica on Imus

I like Lupica. On the Imus show, about the only word Lupica can say is "amazing." Like Gen X kids, Lupica keeps saying: "That was amazing."

Useless little attack, thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Service

Lupica was in college during the height of the Vietnam War. How did he manage to avoid being drafted? Did he get a safe lottery number? The issue of possible conscription affected every healthy male in that era, but it is totally undiscussed here.

I don't know. Find a reliable source that does. And no, blogs don't count. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UT

Great thought i would also like to know about how he did not get draftedToflyforu11 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why it would be discussed if he was one of the many men of his generation who did not go to a war for which the majority of servicemen were not drafted? Admittedly I do not know much on this subject, though I just read up on it a bit. Lupica graduated from high school in 1970; he went to college, graduating in 1974, and probably had a student deferment until that point; the draft ended in 1973 and the war in 1975; the draft lottery for Lupica's year of birth took place in 1972 when he was in college and as his number, which, if you're interested and if this is an accurate source, would have been 107. Therefore, one can reason that he wasn't drafted because he was in college.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hatchet job

This article is a big hatchet job and is going to be severely cut down per WP:BLP. The "Criticism" section makes up more than half the article and is sourced by a damn blog! —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Many of your deletions and explanations seem fair. However, the public comments about Lupica by two public figures in the same industry as Lupica are not NPOV violations; innumerable Wikipedia pages contain authenticated critical quotations about their subjects. While blogposts and message boards are not reliable sources, statements by public figures that appear on blogs would be; that they resulted in a firing makes them even more notable. Your observation about undue length is noted, and so I've boiled down the copy on each, using ellipses. But the quoted material is both descriptive and relevant, and should generally be retained. If you still think it "takes up half an article," the more encyclopedic reponse would be to work towards bolstering the material on the rest of the page. The same goes for the opinion of "the zillions who love him": find these zillions, and report their love. I hope these edits meet with your approval.208.120.226.72 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that, for any article subject, you could find one or two people that don't like them. That deserves a mention in each of those articles? I don't think so and neither does WP:NPOV. Howard Stern has badmouthed everyone at one time or another - you want to add a mention to the article of every one of his targets?! That would be absurd. Now, if you can find an article from a reliable source that talks about how controversial Lupica is, that would be a good source. Otherwise, an individual tiff or two are not appropriate for this article, esp. not sourced by blogs. Feel free to mention Whitlock's firing in Whitlock's article, but not Lupica's. Now that I look closer, there's also a mention in Scoop Jackson's article about Whitlock's firing. So was it Jackson or Lupica that got him fired? How about he's going to machine gun blame at anyone he can find? Does that mean they all get a mention in their articles here?! Silly. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, using those quotes like that is quite possibly a copyvio anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There is now an entry at WP:BLPN#Mike Lupica for this article. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it Jackson or Lupica that got him fired? Already answered: the currently-deleted text began "In 2006, fellow Sports Reporters pundit Jason Whitlock publicly claimed he'd been let go by ESPN after having criticized two of its commentators, including Lupica." As a counterexample to some of your sourcing and NPOV concerns, I'd refer you to the Curt Schilling Wikipage to see both paragraph-long quotes and quotes sourced from blog postings. However, Schilling's status as the author outweighs the otherwise legitimate "sourced by blogs" worry. The Whitburn & Vaccaro quotes under discussion here are from qualified speakers, and not from an otherwise anonymous blogger, and are thus relevant. Innumerable other Wikipages contain critical quotes, feuds, public accusations, "badmouthing," and the like, so long as they are pertinent and authenticated. I've added a comment to the WP:BLPN entry, and will await any result before making any future edits. I'm sure that this will be resolved amicably and suitably for both sides.208.120.226.72 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of my response to this is here: the most important word above is "claimed". There's nothing to confirm Lupica's involvement. As for your Schilling comparison, the glaring difference is that the article is Curt Schilling and the person being quoted is Curt Schilling! Very important distinction. You can put Whitlock's quote in Whitlock's article all you want - within the bounds of copyvio - but it doesn't belong here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the comparison isn't analogous in every particular. But when Schilling's retorts on the "Sons of Sam Horn" blog-- not his own-- in response to unspecific, unquoted Dan Shaughnessy criticisms made "during television appearances," it shows that the Wiki consensus is that there's a tipping point where a private dispute becomes of public interest. An ESPN firing should qualify (see Harold Reynolds for another imprecise analogy). It's not as if there's a third-party citation to verify Schilling's claim that Shaughnessy is a "tool" and an "idiot." (I've never made an edit to the Schilling page, by the way-- it just occurred to me as an example of another sports-related "bellyaching" incident.) I've also left a series of third-party references to the Whitlock interview on the WP:BLPN discussion page, from USA Today, Sports Illustrated and elsewhere; if adding these ref's satisfies some of your concerns, perhaps that's the way to go. I do acknowledge and respect your rigor here.208.120.226.72 (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In passing, the Howard Stern non-analogy also has its snags; in fact, Stern's page includes he-said-he-said-style quotes regarding the tempestuous end of Stern's employment with Infinity Broadcasting.208.120.226.72 (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded (positively) to the independent sources here. Not to belabor the Stern point, your example is again mentioning Stern quotes in the Stern article - just like the Schilling quotes in the Schilling article. Here, we're talking about Whitlock quotes in a Lupica article and it's not appropriate IMHO. As I said at BLPN, Whitlock's firing and his quote are not that big a part of Lupica's life so why take up more than a sentence or two of Lupica's article? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also added a comment over there. That the quotes are about Lupica, rather than from Lupica, seems an irrelevant distinction. This isn't Lupica's Wikiquote page. The content of Whitlock's interview is more pertinent to Lupica's article (in my view) than the subsequent firing. Lupica's quotelessness on the matter is his choice, but there are many criticisms on many other Wikipages that are spelled out and detailed without the verbal participation of the subject.208.120.226.72 (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Responded. And I still disagree that Whitlock shooting his mouth off to the point of getting fired deserves such a huge mention in anyone's article but Whitlock's. A sentence or two maybe - under a trivia section. Posting the Whitlock disagreement under a heading of "Controversy" is inappropriate since it's only one example and that example reflected far more on Whitlock and ESPN than on Lupica. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" heading was already gone in the previous edit. Again, Whitlock's firing is an interesting compounding detail, but the meat of the issue is the original public interview. Whitlock and Lupica were both given the identical ESPN imprimatur. They appeared together, on the same program. Even if Whitlock was "badmouthing" and "shooting his mouth off," he was Lupica's on-air colleague and the content of his remarks are therefore notable. The interview would remain notable even if Whitlock had been promoted to the programming chair of ESPN. That Whitlock's characterization was duplicated in tone by the NY Post's lead sportswriter (the Post and News are similar in terms of circulation in NY) makes it more notable still. Opinionated or negative quotes appear on many Wikipages and are absolutely NOT a NPOV violation, whereas text like "Lupica had his colleague fired in 2006..." would be. Look at the Wikipage for "The View," which includes examples of critical remarks, some which were parried by the target, and some one-sided. It isn't Whitlock's job status that makes the topic worth including-- and not as a throwaway line, either-- but the specific, expansive, and public nature of his comments. Incidentally, there's no reason why positive assessments of Lupica's work and character shouldn't also be included also.208.120.226.72 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Picky point: The View is a television program and not subject to the same stricter policy standards of WP:BLP. Regardless, WP:UNDUE is a good read and essentially stipulates that a key part of maintaining neutrality is ensuring that negative/controversial points should be given only as much attention in articles as they are in reliable sources. If I search for Mike Lupica and filter for reliable sources only, how much mention am I likely to find of the Whitlock firing? A few percent? Less? Then that is roughly the percentage of the article that should be taken up by the incident. That's where I come up with a figure of allowing a sentence - maybe two. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:BLPN discussion seems to be inert, except for us. I've edited the page with lots of referenced commentary on Lupica, both positive and negative. I've further edited the quotes, and added other quotes from the anti-Whitlock side. Plus a full bibliography. Again, I'm not looking at the additions from a "why Whitlock got fired" perspective-- people probably get fired from ESPN every day-- but from a "what are some of the criticisms of Lupica" one. Take a look, and keep an open mind... I'm certainly not looking to hijack the article or "trash" the subject. I understand your concern about the section being too large or one-sided, and I think the many text additions help to balance that impression. If you search for Lupica online, most of what you'll find is his personal bio endlessly mirrored or quoted, blog postings, and his own columns-- so your "percentage" premise is not as useful in presenting a full picture as it might otherwise be. For example, Lupica's bio makes the statement that he was the youngest columnist in New York newspaper history. It's an exceedingly dubious claim, and all efforts to verify it only lead back to his official press bio, but it's all over the net. Anyway, that's the edit for now-- have at it.208.120.226.72 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit (per BLP/N)

A discussion has been occurring on the BLP Noticeboard re: the spate of recent edits. I made the following proposal there, and offer it here for consideration:

In 2006, former The Sports Reporters colleague Jason Whitlock editorialized against Lupica in a blog entry. Whitlock claimed that Lupica's criticism of professional athletes who used unauthorized performance enhancers was disingenuous when compared to Lupica's previous writings on baseball. Whitlock's entry also denigrated Lupica personally, and resulted in Whitlock's dismissal from ESPN. Xymmax (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliminating "Colleagues' criticism" and merging the material

Ten sentences, five quotes, eleven cites, zero section headings. Good?

I think this addresses the subject material in a non-oblique way without being disproportionate in length, while also making it clear that at least one of the writers is tendentious.

[New York Press]] publisher Russ Smith has described Lupica's writing as "excellent on baseball, save his high-mule moral indignation about steroids." But as one of sportswriting's leading voices decrying steroid abuse by athletes, Lupica has come under fire from several of his peers. Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel noted, "I get that people roll their eyes when someone such as Mike Lupica screeches each Sunday morning about Bonds and fails to note he wrote a schmaltzy tome on McGwire and Sosa." Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock wrote "Clemens is Mike Lupica's Mark McGwire mulligan, the pawn Lupica can use to detract attention from the fawning book he wrote about Big Mac's magical summer of '98 when no one — and I mean no one — had ever heard of steroids." The New York Times' Will Leitch: "Sportswriters can cast their votes of "protest" all they want — and we can reserve our right to suspect they’re full of bunk. Mike Lupica of The Daily News has been a fierce voice against McGwire and Sosa and their "hypocrisy," but he made a tidy sum off 'Summer of ’98,' his memoir about following that home run chase with his sons." Bill Simmons made much the same point in his popular ESPN.com column.

In 2006, Whitlock was a former panelist for ESPN's "Sports Reporters," and in an indiscreet interview he blamed Lupica for relegating him from the program. Calling Lupica "an insecure, mean-spirited busybody," Whitlock claimed "they're mostly upset that I wouldn't participate in their Barry Bonds witch hunt and help them single Bonds out as the creator of steroids." The overly candid interview resulted in Whitlock's dismissal from ESPN, with a network spokesman stating, "These were personal attacks that went too far." 208.120.225.14 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be able to look more closely later. First impression is that the first Whitlock mention is unnecessary - the second is fine, although mention of Whitlock's other target would be better. He says "they're" which doesn't make sense when coupled with "Calling Lupica". The Leitch quote is a repetition of the line further up in the article which should then be removed. Would also be good to mention that plenty of other writers also profitted from the steroid era, not just Lupica. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a much more reasonable treatment of the material. I think two quotes from Whitlock is probably excessive. I have no strong preference for one over the other, although I personally find the comment that no one had heard of steroids in 1998 to be ridiculous, as there were plenty of whispers, and some speculation in print even then. (The Mitchell Report lists dozens of such articles near the end.) Assuming we keep the second quote, I don't think we need to characterize it as both "indiscreet" and "overly candid" - either is fine, both seem redundant, and the words themselves make the point that Whitlock was firing off with no filters engaged. Overall, I don't think there should be a problem harmonizing the rest of the article to accomodate this. Xymmax (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whitlock's first quote ("no one knew about steroids") is sarcasm; editing down the quotes sometimes obscures the context. I added "sarcastically" to eliminate confusion. I shouldn't like to cut either Whitlock quote, though, as they're both vivid and play off one another. The more reasonable first quote also underscores his less measured interview remarks.

I've fixed the "he/they're" discrepancy that Wknight94 spotted (also the result of sharply editing the quote). I took out the "indiscreet/candid" redundancy that Xymmax noted. Wknight also requested a reference to Whitlock's "other target," and I've added that too.

[New York Press]] publisher Russ Smith has described Lupica's writing as "excellent on baseball, save his high-mule moral indignation about steroids." But as one of sportswriting's leading voices decrying steroid abuse by athletes, Lupica has come under fire from several of his peers. Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel noted, "I get that people roll their eyes when someone such as Mike Lupica screeches each Sunday morning about Bonds and fails to note he wrote a schmaltzy tome on McGwire and Sosa." Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock sarcastically wrote "Clemens is Mike Lupica's Mark McGwire mulligan, the pawn Lupica can use to detract attention from the fawning book he wrote about Big Mac's magical summer of '98 when no one — and I mean no one — had ever heard of steroids." The New York Times' Will Leitch wrote, "Sportswriters can cast their votes of "protest" all they want — and we can reserve our right to suspect they’re full of bunk. Mike Lupica of The Daily News has been a fierce voice against McGwire and Sosa and their "hypocrisy," but he made a tidy sum off 'Summer of ’98,' his memoir about following that home run chase with his sons." Bill Simmons made much the same point in his popular ESPN.com column.

In an indiscreet 2006 interview, Whitlock blamed Lupica for relegating him from ESPN's "Sports Reporters" program, where he had been a regular. Calling Lupica "an insecure, mean-spirited busybody," Whitlock claimed that Lupica and the show's producer were "mostly upset that I wouldn't participate in their Barry Bonds witch hunt and help them single Bonds out as the creator of steroids." The interview, which also criticized Scoop Jackson, resulted in Whitlock's dismissal from ESPN, with a network spokesman stating, "These were personal attacks that went too far." 208.120.225.14 (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of crossing out the parts that I would remove from your suggestion. They are just repeats of what is already said. (I struck through inline to save space - feel free to reproduce if that's a problem). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. But I believe it would be a mistake to cut 2 of 3 quotes about Lupica's book-- it'd put the treatment right back to the "any one person can say something about anybody" territory that you originally objected to in January. I don't know how many bytes two additional sentences eat up, but they're important for establishing reliable context. And not just on the issue of Lupica's ticklish turnaround, but also in regards to Whitlock's more incendiary outburst. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

For compromise's sake, I shaved the first Whitlock quote even further, and I've transferred the latest edit to the page. I also restored some non-controversial material that had gone missing during past edits. Take a look, and see whether everything has been incorporated into the article to everyone's liking. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem there is repetition. Frankly, it's boring. I don't want to read five people's positive quotes about Lupica, much less negative. I also tagged one sentence as a violation of both WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. PEACOCK lists "leader" as a specific example. It's the same issue where you're trying to show a pattern by saying "several" or "many" or "some" have criticized him and then try to back that with an example list of those critics. Read "Repetition" under WP:WEASEL#Other problems - except this is worse where you repeat the same viewpoint over and over. It just doesn't work. If you read WP:WEASEL, the suggested solution is to abandon the approach and try something else entirely. I'm back to my original suggestion to remove the list of quotes and just leave the assertion above that paragraph that he wrote a book about players who subsequently became disappointments. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as I disagreed that Lupica was "victimized" by complaints about his behavior, I strenuously disagree that Lupica was "disappointed" by athletes who "subsequently" revealed their true colors. That assertion is almost certainly false, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. You're again being too deferential-- Lupica promotes himself as a sardonic, provocative and honest critic, but as his peers have suggested, he was profitably pro-HRs when home runs were cool, and has since followed the prevailing winds. If you want to suggest in the article that Lupica was bamboozled, you need to establish that with reliable sources.

As for the WP:WEASEL "Repetition" advisory, it reads in part "...an article constructed entirely of variations on this theme can get painfully repetitive. The requirement to properly cite and specify exactly who has asserted what, when and why is what stands between the article and a bloated, incoherent piece documenting everything that might have conceivably been said on the subject by anybody, ever." Here, the required citations are properly included; the entire section isn't variations on one theme, let alone the whole article; and the discussion of hypocrisy is neither bloated nor incoherent. It has already been streamlined down to two 1-sentence quotes and two further allusions. You may be bored, but complementary quotes do work-- cited together, they rebut the "rogue crank" tag that Whitlock's interview can be labelled with, and may well deserve. It would be less coherent, not more, to merely allude to multiple examples of peer criticism without demonstrating that they actually exist. WP:WEASEL urges editors to attribute propositions to concrete sources. The advisory doesn't support your reluctance to include the content at all.

I've deleted both of the words that you felt were causing WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL problems. "Leading" is now "prominent," and "several of" is gone. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No no no. Simply removing "several of" is missing the point. We're going in circles. You can't say "Men love cannibalism" and then give quotes from Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish to back it up. "But I gave two examples and the statement only says men which is plural - two examples is plural". Giving four or five or even 20 quotes does not justify a statement of "Sportswriters criticized Lupica". How many sportswriters? How many praised Lupica for the same thing? How many didn't care at all? How many profited from '98 and then turned tail in '05? How many of his critics did the exact same thing and just haven't been caught? An overly general statement like "Sportswriters criticized Lupica" is inflammatory and unsupported by any of the references you've given. The useless Seinfeld reference I removed also started with "Despite criticism..." No one has properly supported this claim that Lupica is criticized any more than anyone else - or at least not more proportionate to his prominence in the industry. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• To segue away from your discussion for a moment, I've finally put my finger on what bothers me with this article. All of Anon's quotes, (which I really have no objection to in their current form) feel out of place because they all react to something that doesn't exist in this article - Lupica's opposition to steroids. We need some quotes from Lupica decrying steroid use in baseball, and ideally something of his rhapsodic 1998 writing. That would tend to establish his bona fides as a anti-steroid pundit, which then would allow the other writer's perceptions of hypocrisy to make sense in context. I'm a bit pressed for time, but I'll try to find some this tonight or this weekend. Xymmax (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The quotes become even less necessary then. Lupica wrote a book about McGwire and Sosa - that's a fact. You find sources to say that Lupica is anti-steroids now. The about-face is quite apparent to anyone reading the article. So then what is the point of including five or six sportswriters who also noticed the about-face? Who cares? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, WKnight is insisting upon criteria that would be impossible to establish even if they didn't represent original research, which they do.

Also, this claim WKnight has periodically objected to ("Lupica is disproportionately criticized") does not actually exist in the text. "Sportswriters criticized Lupica" is fact, which is best established by quotes of sportswriters criticizing Lupica. If WKnight can provide examples of one or more sportswriting peers "praising Lupica for the same thing," he is free to add them. If WKnight can provide a citation for one of the quoted individuals engaging in the same hypocrisy, he is free to add it. Anything that WKnight would like to add that he thinks will provide context, or a rebuttal, or an alibi, or whatever, we'll be happy to entertain.

I felt that the phrase "several sportswriters criticized" was fairer to the situation than just "sportswriters criticized," but WKnight objected and I have tried at every turn to be receptive to his objections, fluid though they have sometimes been. It's my opinion that the application of WKnight's suggestions and directives have greatly sharpened and improved the debated content. But WKnight's unnegotiable endpoint, to which he continually returns, is total elimination. This uncompromising individual view has been the primary obstacle here.

WKnight says "Who cares?" and that may accurately reflect his personal opinion. The publishers and readers of the New York Times, Fox Sports, ESPN.com, Yahoo Sports, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, etc. etc. apparently felt otherwise.

Conversely, Xymmax's observation is entirely on target. I look forward to seeing his contribution. I'll look for some illuminating Lupica steroid material past and present, also. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Classic POV-pushing and I'm just about done discussing this. You're even reverting changes unrelated to what we're discussing - that Whitlock's drama is misplaced in the article and that yet another attack quote elsewhere was removed. You're looking for Wikiquote - that's where we put the quotefarms you're apparently insisting on. They add nothing here and to suggest I further inundate this article with quotes simply to counterbalance you is completely contrary to what we do here. You claim that I keep changing tune - well that's because you're wrong on so many levels. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your unilateral action does not represent consensus in any way. It's very tough to see much good faith from you at the moment. Not after you feign compromise here and on WP:BLPN, and then mass-delete the bulk of the text anyhow, including several edits made to your specifications and tastes.

As you are "just about done discussing this," I have applied for Editor Assistance. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

None of my compromises included a giant list of quotes slamming a living person. A possible compromise involving one or two quotes was rendered moot when I realized the only purpose they served was to slam home a simple statement that was already represented - and only needed to be properly sourced as User:Xymmax pointed out. The reluctant compromise to include the Whitlock reference is represented by me copying exactly what User:Xymmax suggested - and that remains in the article now even though I'm not overly comfortable with it. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As for myself, I won't presume to speak on Xymmax's behalf. I'll simply reproduce a quote from his/her comment immediately above, which was posted just half a day ago: "I really have no objection to [the quotes] in their current form."

To be clear: there is no third-editor support for quote deletion. 208.120.225.14 (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support or not, WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy and the link I provided specifically mentions moving quotes to Wikiquote. Just because not enough people have weighed in on this issue specifically does not mean there is consensus. You can't claim consensus without a quorum. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well good people, I'm sorry for disengaging for a couple of days. RL business kept me anyway. To clarify my position, I do feel that Anon's quotes are accurate and well-sourced - I no longer have WP:V or libel concerns. I do feel that the addition of all the quotes unbalances the article. My comment above harmonizing the quotes was a gentle way to suggest that the article needs to be expanded in scope in order to accommodate them. I will post my attempt here. I will say that I had no idea of the ferocity of opinion against Lupica in the blogosphere. I mean, there are attack sites that bear his name. I now think that we aren't telling the whole story on Lupica unless we have some treatment of the steroids issue. The problem is that with all of these attack sites, the thing will be in danger of becoming a coatrack. Xymmax (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Hence why I keep an eye on this and Joe Morgan and Mike Golic, etc., etc. There's something about sportscasters and sportswriters that gets people crazy - and the more well known, the crazier people get about them. (Everyone figures they can do it better perhaps?) Xymmax, I have to ask you the same as I'm trying to ask the IP: what further do you think is to be made about the steroids issue? Do you mean an example of Lupica's quotes on the issue? Or has Lupica particularly been in the news as a flip-flopper? In the negative quotes that IP provides, the detractors appear to be dropping Lupica's name for no other reason than because his is a big name. If Lupica's career had not succeeded as it did, his name would have simply been replaced in those quotes with whoever is currently #2. They don't apply to Lupica any more than the countless other people that commented positively in '98 and negatively after '05. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Indent removed). I think I've (finally) come around to your position - not that we ever were that far apart. There's a ton of anti-Lupica content out there, but a full treatment of it would completely unbalance this article. I think its best to leave it as it is until such time as the article has expanded considerably. Anything else will indeed make the article become too POV. Since I have no interest in writing that expansion (or at least its way, way below three other articles I'm trying to write) I'll just leave it be. G'luck. Xymmax (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

References

BOOKS

i love peanuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.70.178 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

An established user should add that Lupica published the book, 'Hero' in 2010, 'The Underdogs' in 2012, and 'Game Changers: Book 1' in 2012. 'Hero' is a departure from the others which are in his regular sports genre, as it is what School Library Journal calls a "high-concept, high-octane thriller." Cas28 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)--Cas28 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Olson incident

As part of Wknight94's apparently long-running effort to whitewash this article, he has continuously excised reference to Lupica's alleged role in Lisa Olson's departure from The News. This is despite the fact it is properly cited to a reliable source (The New York Post [1]) and couched in sufficiently protective wording to ensure it did not go further than what was reported ("In 2008, Lupica was reportedly responsible for Daily News colleague Lisa Olson quitting the paper after he appropriated her assigned topic at the NFC Championship Game, causing her to miss her deadline and be passed over for an assignment to Super Bowl XLII").

In furtherance of Wknight94's attempt at censorship, he has also taken to misrepresenting the nature of the source in his edit summary, characterizing the author of The Post article, Keith J. Kelly, as "an advice columnist." In actuality, the column in question is a business column (on sports media) that appeared in the business section of the paper. There's no issue here, other than one editor's bizarre determination to suppress anything and everything that might potentially reflect negatively on Mike Lupica. The Lisa Olson incident is both relevant and properly sourced, and should be included.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP indicates conservatism, and "reportedly" doing something controversial is not exactly a "conservative" approach - it's gossip mongering. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(@PassionoftheDamon - cross-posted from his/her talk page) Here is your version with your own additions and assumptions:

Lupica was reportedly responsible for Daily News colleague Lisa Olson quitting the paper after he appropriated her assigned topic at the NFC Championship Game, causing her to miss her deadline and be passed over for an assignment to Super Bowl XLII

Here is what I get out of the same "reliable source":

An individual business columnist, Keith J. Kelly, writing for a competing newspaper using anonymous 'insiders' as sources, reported that Lisa Olson quit after her superiors pulled her off a single story in favor of Lupica, 'apparently' because Lupica was already doing a similar story. Olson could not recover from the miscommunication and missed her deadline and was subsequently not issued press credentials by the Daily News (or 'The Snooze' as the consummate professional, Kelly, calls his competitor).

Should I go on? Same source, different interpretation. You clearly gleaned only the worst possible picture of Lupica from that. I gleaned that there's no end to how low people will go when they are jealous of a reputable and powerful co-worker, especially when they are cloaked in anonymity. I see it every day in real life, so of course it's worse in the cutthroat journalism industry. From that story, how do you know it wasn't Olson's own fault that she and Lupica were writing about the same subject at the same time? How do you know that led to her not going to the Super Bowl? Maybe she missed 20 deadlines that year. Maybe someone got wind of her Tynes angle and hated it, and Lupica saved the day by covering her ass and writing a quick story inside the deadline. Hell, even the anonymous sources can't agree on why she was yanked from the Super Bowl: "One source close to the News said it might have been her stormy past that kept her away from the big game between the Giants and the Patriots." Your "Lupica was reportedly responsible" is totally off-base even from the words in Kelly's own column. Wknight94 ^talk 01:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

The Only Game (2015) Nickmcgoldrick (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Lupica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207060829/http://www.bouchercon.info/nominees.html to http://www.bouchercon.info/nominees.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mike Lupica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029030607/http://www.greatertalent.com/speakers/speakers.php?speakerid=412 to http://www.greatertalent.com/speakers/speakers.php?speakerid=412
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205112357/http://www.tv.com/the-sports-reporters/show/37956/episode.html to http://www.tv.com/the-sports-reporters/show/37956/episode.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061117012608/http://www.boatsbooksandbrushes.com/press20.html to http://www.boatsbooksandbrushes.com/press20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Works

I added WorldCat citations for Lupica's works. The info is currently divided into nonseries/series and then adult/young adult, but I think it would be beneficial to add which are fiction and which are non-fiction.
This section may be better suited to a table with columns for title, date of publication, publisher, fiction or nonfiction, and notes (adult vs. young adult, series, bestseller information, important info about the content, such as "cowritten autobiography" or "contributor of one essay".
Thoughts? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)